Incidental
and secondary findings are on the rise, thanks largely to advances in
diagnostic technologies and adoptions of value-based practice
incentives. As such findings increasingly confound patients as well as
clinicians—not to mention medical ethicists and malpractice
courts—radiology would do well to follow discussions going on in the
field of genetic testing.
Stella Kang, MD, of the departments of radiology and population health at NYU and colleagues have done that. Their observations were posted online Aug. 29 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.
In medical genetics, the authors point out, the current emphasis is on engaging with patient preferences before results are generated and returned to the clinician.
“The rich history and literature of genetic incidental and secondary findings can reveal parallels for handling incidental findings in radiology,” they write, noting that, in exome sequencing and genome sequencing, incidental and secondary findings fall into three major categories:
Stella Kang, MD, of the departments of radiology and population health at NYU and colleagues have done that. Their observations were posted online Aug. 29 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.
In medical genetics, the authors point out, the current emphasis is on engaging with patient preferences before results are generated and returned to the clinician.
“The rich history and literature of genetic incidental and secondary findings can reveal parallels for handling incidental findings in radiology,” they write, noting that, in exome sequencing and genome sequencing, incidental and secondary findings fall into three major categories: